Here is our final report on the Learning Circles Project to our funder,
the National Literacy Secretariat, including excerpts from feedback
on the project and the report of our External Evaluator, Shawn Conway.

Identifying Inclusive Models
of Lifelong
Learning in Canada: Final Report

Deliverables, feedback, evaluation. We
have completed the project. The project is now generally referred
to as The Learning Circles Project, because the approach to inclusive
lifelong learning that we identified, described and tried to support
through this work is a learning circles approach.

In our proposal, we undertook to deliver the following.

A resource book written in clear language and aimed at facilitators
in community settings on developing and implementing inclusive lifelong
learning groups and identifying models for good practice.

A report that describes the research and presents findings, including
descriptions of all of the learning groups that were identified and
detailed descriptions of the learning groups that were studied in
depth. The report will also include recommendations for sustaining
inclusive lifelong learning in Canada, incorporating feedback from
across Canada. Policy implications for implementing lifelong
learning models nationally and implications for literacy program
and research will be discussed.

We proposed to develop these materials as texts which we would post
online. As the project developed, we decided to develop a website,
encouraging readers to explore our work in various ways. On this
website, we have provided sixteen in-depth narratives of learning circles,
short descriptions and overview descriptions of other learning circles
in rural, urban and Indigenous communities, analysis of the values
and practices of learning circles, a history of the project and a description
of its methodology, a resource lists, excerpts from the transcript
of a symposium that brought together participants from ten of the learning
circles in the study, policy recommendations coming out of that symposium
and The Beginner’s Guide to Learning Circles, a Powerpoint
presentation aimed at people interested in facilitating or participating
in learning circles (the resource book). This website is at www.nald.ca/learningcircles/index.htm.

In addition, as part of the website, we have provided a 60-page document,
in PDF format, which can be printed and read as a report. This
document includes less than one-third of the material on the website,
but provides a compact, linear overview of our work.

The 60-page document and The Beginner’s Guide are available
in French. These will be posted at a separate location at NALD
in January.

The English and French versions of the 60-page document were used
to solicit feedback on the project. We received substantial feedback
from across the country. From this feedback, we conclude that
the approach to inclusive community learning that has emerged from
our work, what we call “a learning circles approach,” is
a broadly useful. A number of the people who gave us feedback
mentioned that they were involved with starting learning circles, or
planning to start learning circles after reading the report. In
addition, a number of people said that we should pursue this work,
finding partnerships to support networking and workshops on a learning
circles approach to community learning. We have begun to do this
at a local level, by supporting the creation of learning circles in
our communities through in-kind workshops and applications for funding
for learning circles. People also encouraged us to do further
research.

Here are some excerpts from the feedback we received.

One implication of this work is the need to be aware that literacy
is a potential barrier. This is more of a problem for participants
than for practitioners. It works two ways:

1. Participants in projects who are struggling with non-literacy
issues (poverty, addiction, mental health, etc) may not have awareness
of or sympathy for those who have literacy as a barrier.

2. Where I work, at a Vancouver drop in for women in the sex
trade, a lot of women use the drop-in but do not come into the learning
centre. Many of them struggle with literacy and are afraid if they
come in they will be asked to read. They associate “learning” with “print” and
are either not interested or afraid.

Betsy Alkenbrack, British Columbia

In Manitoba, less than 1% of the 40% (IALSS results) who are at levels
1 and 2 literacy competency, actually attend literacy programs. That’s
a lot of Manitobans who don’t have the literacy skills to cope
with the challenges of the knowledge/technology based society in which
we live. I have been thinking for some time that, if society
and government are going to have any influence at all in helping these
unreached Manitobans to embark on intentional learning, it will have
to be in other ways than through literacy programs.

I have been advocating that literacy practitioners work with facilitators
of any groups in the community that are already gathering for some
purpose – e.g., diabetes support groups, family first groups,
information dispensing groups (living wills) – so that the way
the groups are facilitated will result in participants improving their
skills and strategies for learning whatever it is that they want/need
to learn. Literacy development would be embedded into the activities
that constituted the group’s reason for being. This is
a situational task-based approach to enhancing literacy skills.

As I was reading the report on the Learning Circles project, I said
to myself, “Aha! Here is another way of engaging Canadians
in intentional learning that will have a spin-off result of increased
literacy skills and strategies.”

I also remembered how important the coffee time was at literacy programs. In
effect, they were tiny learning circles. The conversation around
the table ran the gamut of many topics, but it was always relevant
to the participants and there was a great deal of learning by individuals
and collectively as a group. All the criteria of a learning group
as described on page 3 existed in these gatherings around a common
table. And the impacts were just as they are described on page
3. The rest of the learning in the class was what learners thought
they should be learning, but the learning around the coffee table had
the biggest impact on their thinking and on the way they lived their
lives.

When I was teaching, I liked to begin every class, whether it was
adult literacy or EAL, with a sharing time about what new things we
had learned through the course of daily living and/or how we had applied
what we had been learning in class – what we had read or written,
what oral language connections we had made, how and where we had applied
thinking and problem solving strategies. I can see how these
were the beginnings of the learning circles described in the report. I
think we need to stress more the importance of these ways of learning
when we train new adult literacy practitioners.

Margaret Chambers, Manitoba

Using the learning circles approach enables a community-based adult
literacy program to break down barriers and address long standing socially
constructed pillars that could appear threatening and intimidating
to various groups of adult learners. Such barriers have effectively
silenced Aboriginal peoples and placed them on the margins of society.

With a learning circles approach many Aboriginal adult learners have
an opportunity to voice their ideas and thoughts and re-establish an
alternative form of knowing and learning. When the traditional barriers
are removed and an environment of safety and acceptance is established
then individuals will feel free to speak. They will develop their own
language and become able to name and talk about the problems that they
face in their day-to-day lives. They may even be able to add their
voice to others and move from the margins into the socially valued.

Nida Doherty, Ontario

Learning circles support my own belief that we need to see literacy
learning much more broadly than having classes. Many of the folks who
could profit from classes don’t see themselves in those classes.
They aren’t exactly beating down the doors for entry and if we
are to believe the IALSS reports, many don’t believe they have
a problem as we see it. The other fact the field must come to grips
with is that our culture doesn’t highly respect literacy learning.
We don’t get very excited by the idea of a learning culture either.
So, less formal learning is something to look at.

Anne Marie Downie, Nova Scotia

Institutions like Caledon have proven that substantial literacy gains
can be had when participants are engaged in endeavor together which
has value to the community e.g., building a well in rural India. They
will naturally reach for the documents and other skills which support
them in this endeavor. It becomes the way into literacy-related
learning. I would argue that this methodology holds the key for “inclusive” strategies
for groups in particular who continue to fall outside the system from
any perspective. It is the place to start. The outcomes
for individuals will typically lead them to reach for other learning
opportunities and will assist them in starting to break the cycles
of failure and poverty. In my opinion, if we are to redress the
considerable exclusion that our society has created, it must involve
long-term strategies which see people through fairly predictable cycles
of learning and growth which will lead them to a place of dignity and
self-worth however the individual chooses to define that. In
many cases, it will lead them as adults to work-related choices. This
would be the moment in time where they would be involved in programs/training/education
which is narrower and more traditional by the demands of requiring
accreditation for things like nursing or electrical work. Time
enough then for very specific and targeted Essential Skills instruction
if you will. Circles are an earlier point in the path . . .

There are certain principles of PLAR in its purest philosophical sense
which cause me to soldier on for its cause: asset building, focusing
on learning irrespective of source, flexible means of proof, communication
device to display what an individual knows and can do and who they
are, recognizing someone. There are certain variants of PLAR
called models which trouble me greatly as they are exclusionary and
thus contradict the fundamental principle of recognition and flexibility. Circles
in my mind embody the very philosophies which I find attractive about
PLAR. Thus, I see Circles as a means of further exploring/defining
a new PLAR – one which is inclusive, possibly oral, highly visual
or audible most likely, building on assets and laying the groundwork
for the expression of transferable learning which can bridge into new
opportunities for individuals – again as defined by their choice.

Sandi Howell, Manitoba

Participants can form the process from what they put in

Goals can be put in place, they can also change, there is flexibility

People get to see that there are learning environments that are
safe, comfortable and accessible

They can leave their worries about previous barriers behind

The research includes an Indigenous perspective (i.e. drumming
and sewing narratives)

Notes from an interview with Darlene King, Ontario

Recommends that we produce a four to five page summary of the study
for wider distribution. This summary could include a glossary
of terms describing different kinds of learning approaches.

Feels that we have just begun to scratch the surface on issues of
class, gender and race. He found some of our ways of talking
about inter-cultural understanding limited, for example, saying that
learning circles promote “tolerance.” They might
go further, helping participants to “understand and embrace cultural
differences.”

Would like to see more research on how this approach works to support
learning across cultural differences. He believes that funding
could be found for this kind of research.

Believes that it would have been useful for the study to have presented
a more explicit analysis of class, gender and race issues. More
clarity about what we mean by “inclusive” would be useful.

Sees supporting a learning circles approach to community learning
as important work, and encouraged us to find partners to pursue this
work further.

Notes from an interview with Amanuel Melles, Ontario

Two of the most fundamental principles of community learning and learning
about community learning I think important to the project:

Learning has to begin with the experience of the learner (which
in many political and formal forms of learning, life experience is
devalued).

When researching learners, the researchers learn.

A second observation is how the report highlights all the gaps in
formal learning such as:

equity

oral and written or both (and various ways of learning literacy)

a sense of belonging (sense of community)

a safe place and scared place

self esteem

policy change (or alternative forms of knowing)

listening

collective decision making

While the report rightfully concentrates on learning circles in the
context of learners’ experience, there are some fundamental questions
that arise of which may inform future projects or not?

The gap between citizens and the governance and economic structures
that effect them in terms of fundamental human rights and democratic
principles.

Governmental and funding support. While the symposium was very
cautious in terms of how to obtain governmental support, the fear
was that this kind of approach might do might do more to weaken learning
circles than to strengthen them. The nature of learning circles is
fundamentally that they are part of civil society, therefore government
should take responsibility for support but “through existing
programs, with in existing policy frameworks.” The value to
the public good is obvious, yet not supported which raises some questions
of gaining support without being coopted. Learning Circles
will become more and more critical to basic survival of civil society
and more questions need to be asked about this especially in the
context of alternative or authentic ways of knowing. Why is it that
learning circles are so critical to civil society yet so un-acknowledged
as legitimate knowledge?

Learning in a learning circle is different from formal learning – how
are the learning processes different? These differences have
not been determined yet.

Notes from an interview with Maurice Taylor, Ontario

Because the learning circles approach begins with the interests and
concerns of adults, it is grounded in a context of importance to them.
It demands confidence and special skills on the part of adult educators
in order to act as facilitators of learning rather than “instructors.” There
also has to be a way to reimburse adult educators/facilitators for
work that likely will not lead to credentials for circle participants.
The benefits of learning in this way will have to be strategically
documented. The time, effort and resources currently spent on trying
to convince adults to improve their literacy skills can be reallocated
to incorporating literacy into activities that already taking place
in many communities . . .

This is a natural blend of community development and literacy. Literacy
and learning therefore result THROUGH community development activities
such as those undertaken in learning circles, as communities address
their local concerns and interests rather than literacy FOR community
development or other ends. Evaluating the “outcomes” in
terms of community and civic engagement would help to validate community
development work and strengthen communities while building confidence
and capacity of the participants . . .

Formal adult education requires much greater public cost than informal
learning circles. We must be careful that governments do not see this
as a way to abdicate responsibility for adult education, leaving it
up to individuals and their communities. As the 2006 Canadian
Policy Research Network report “Too Many Left Behind” states,
we must work to ensure that there are enough formal learning opportunities
for those who want a second chance, something adults might realize
after participating in a learning circle.

Nayda Veeman, Saskatchewan

The biggest implication that I can see for a learning circle approach
to community development work is that it is an economical model. The
supports required are not expensive, a facilitator, a safe place to
meet, funding to remove barriers such as childcare and transportation
and money for food and other supplies. This should be a doable model
forany community group in the country. The fact that learning circles
are not widely known or discussed is disheartening, but that can be
remedied.

Communities can provide a safe place to meet, funding so that facilitators
can improve their skills, funding for things like food, childcare and
transportation. In supporting a learning circle, a community will expose
the many layers that are present and yet sometimes invisible or ignored.
This can be an enriching experience or a threatening one. A learning
circle can provide a network for community development that leads to
the management of community resources, concern for families, concern
for livelihoods and above all else, concern for the community itself.

When a community understands that the right to participate in the
work force is an integral part of the learning process, will it open
doors to allow young people, persons with physical challenges and different
ways of knowing to enrich their community? Will it become a more vibrant
community because it values all its members? I would hope so . . .

I like that the original group formed a working group to keep exploring
the issues surrounding inclusive lifelong learning. The statement that
you eventually saw yourselves as “a learning circle, a place
of discussion and discovery” is an indicator of the growth process
you went through. The researchers becoming an inner circle within the
working group is also interesting, you replicated the model you were
studying which, I believe added an extra dimension to your research.
You added layers to your work at every opportunity, from working group
and researchers becoming learning circles and then hosting a symposium
that was also a learning circle. In labour circles, we call this the
learning spiral, an action-reflection model that leads to change and
growth; it is present in your report.

Linda Wentzel, Nova Scotia

I would like to do a community portfolio based on the culture,
drawing out the rich history of the community

Demonstrates reverence for all people in the community and validates
people as members of the community

Learning circles fit the prior learning assessment context perfectly,
they are like hand and glove

The circle concept is very powerful and is designed to protect
the integrity of all individuals

Notes from an interview with Paul Zakos, Ontario

In addition to the general feedback, briefly excerpted above, we received
feedback on specific points in the report, and have made revisions
in the PDF reports and in the material on the website.

The project has been evaluated by an External Evaluator, Shawn Conway. His
report follows.

An Evaluation of “The Learning Circles Project”

By Shawn Conway

shawnco@ralphthornton.org

Background

Many months before the Learning Circle Project was approved and funded
by the National Literacy Secretariat (N.L.S.), a group of literacy
practitioners began meeting in response to the Movement for Canadian
Literacy’s National Action Plan for Literacy. The group
was concerned about the proposal for a national adult education system
and what they felt was the potential for a focus on academic learning
in academic environments. The group called for “inclusive
lifelong learning” to be one of the plan’s goals and considered
piloting inclusive community learning centres. But after several
meetings the group realized they did not have enough information about
the variety of community learning situations that currently exist. They
decided that a more valuable project would be one that explores and
sheds light on inclusive community learning in its various forms. It
was in this context of open-ended exploration that the “Lifelong
Learning Working Group,” as the group called itself, was formed
and the Learning Circle project was conceived.

The Working Group consisted of highly skilled and seasoned literacy
practitioners who had observed the trends and fashions of literacy
policy for well over two decades. They defined themselves as
a learning circle, which meant, among other things, that they were
committed to an emergent, open-ended process of observation, analysis
and reflection. This exploratory group process mirrored what
they believed to be the kind of process that occurs in many other learning
circles and is, in fact, a defining characteristic of inclusive learning
circles. It was in this context that I was chosen as the Outside
Evaluator for the Learning Circles project.

Evaluation Process

Designing the Evaluation Framework

The initial project proposal submitted to the N.L.S. in late 2003
stated that the objectives of the project were:

To describe models of informal learning that have managed to include
participants who have difficulty using written language, or who might
not want to use written language to support their learning;

To explore some of these models in depth;

To identify best practices from the models;

To identify benefits to participants;

To identify benefits to communities;

To identify ways in which knowledge about informal, inclusive learning
can be shared;

To explore possible links between this kind of learning and adult
literacy programs;

To propose ways in which inclusive lifelong learning can be strengthened
across Canada;

To propose new approaches to lifelong learning.

As I prepared for my first meeting with the Working Group in the fall
of 2004, I considered these objectives and I wondered what the group
might define as the indicators of success and outcomes for each of
the objectives. For many years, in human services work and education,
nationally and internationally, the accepted wisdom has been that a
project is legitimate and meaningful to the degree that it has well-defined
and pre-defined indicators, benchmarks and outcome statements. For
example, in a project of this kind, we might create a list of indicators
that equate success with participants mastering job application forms
or reporting that they have more confidence in using written language
for their day-to-day tasks.

Soon into my first meeting with the Working Group it became quite
clear that the Group members had no intention of creating lists of
pre-defined indicators of success and tailoring their research in order
to look for certain details and experiences and not others. In
fact, the Group was ambivalent about the whole concept of “evaluation” laden
as it is, especially in the literacy field, with histories of testing,
benchmarks, employment preparedness, etc. much of which has been counterproductive
and sometimes destructive. At the same time the Group was very
committed to deep engagement with and analysis of learning circles,
how they work and how they are effective for their members and communities.

While the Group welcomed the idea of developing a process to keep
them focussed on their larger goals, they were opposed to a process
that restricted or predetermined opportunities for learning circles
and their participants to present or speak for themselves. As
one Group member put it, they wanted to “build indicators without
anticipating the end.” They wanted to keep their broad
destination in mind but not “filter” people’s experience
through predetermined criteria.

The Group also wanted to avoid coming up with a new formula for lifelong
learning that could become a new fetish for policy makers. That
is, the Group did not want their work to support a new policy directive
whereby learning circles are defined in a particular way and are promoted
as a solution to “literacy problems.”

If, as the original proposal stated, they wanted to “provide
a view of the possibilities for inclusive lifelong learning” that
learning circle models represent, then they would need an evaluation
process peculiar to their open-ended, exploratory research process. The
evaluation process would need to allow for, rather than circumscribe,
the organic, dynamic process of the Working Group as well as the open-ended
emergent lessons and recommendations that follow from the engagement
with the learning circles.

So, instead of a set of indicators and narrow outcomes we designed
an analytical framework that focussed on the three levels or areas
of outcomes in the original proposal, namely, the resource book, the
research process, and policy recommendations. The Group agreed
to address the following questions on a continuing basis:

Are we doing / have we done what we said we would do?

What would we have done differently?

What are we learning?

So what? That is, what has changed / will change / should
change because of what we have learned?

Now what? (What is left to do?)

What are the core factors that contribute to the learning of the
Working Group?

Although these guiding questions were uncomplicated, they were in
keeping with the Group’s adherence to rigorous and honest reflection
at each step in the research. Thus, while the evaluation framework
seemed deceptively simple, it provided a useful guide to a group as
strong and committed as the Working Group.

Interim Evaluation Meeting

The next stage in the evaluation process occurred after six months
of further research. During this period the four researchers
had been working with their respective learning circles and had been
meeting or communicating via the telephone or email regarding their
work.

In May of 2005, the whole Working Group and the Outside Evaluator
met to discuss progress to date. In a note from the Project Facilitator
prior to the meeting, it was stated that the meeting would be an opportunity
to “look at how far the narratives and analysis have moved us
toward a resource book and recommendations. Do we have what we
need to develop the resource book and recommendations? What additional
pieces do we need? At this point, what kinds of recommendations
do we see coming out of this project?”

By this time considerable work had been done by the researchers. The
Working Group members were very satisfied with the sixteen draft narratives
and the six draft analyses that had been written by the researchers. From
my vantage point as Outside Evaluator, I saw that the researchers had
already begun to articulate important lessons and suggestions regarding
the overarching themes of how learning circles work and what makes
them successful for their members and communities. There were
already specific and rich drafts of writing with titles such as “How
Do Things change Because of Learning Circles?”, “Inside
the Learning Circle: What Makes It Work?”, and “Literacy
and Inclusion."

It was also clear that the evaluation framework was providing the
Working Group, and the researchers more particularly, with what they
needed to stay focussed and to assess progress towards the project’s
goals.

My role at this meeting was to help facilitate the Group’s reflection
on how far along the work was, what was being learned and what else
needed to be done. In general, the Group members responded well
to the draft narratives and analyses and considered other questions
and issues that the research had spurred. For example, an interesting
process occurred whereby each level of learning circles provided opportunities
for reflection. In its work with the sixteen learning circles,
the researchers relied on each other and became a kind of learning
circle themselves. In turn, the larger Working Group was a learning
circle that reflected on and provided feedback about what the researchers
were learning. This multi-layered process of reflection was named “analysis-by-discussion” by
the Group and it encouraged a broad and exciting fabric of reflection,
a sort of proof that learning circles are good vehicles for lifelong
learning.

By the time of this meeting the researchers had also begun work on
a website and had started to summarize what they had learned about
learning circles. The lively and provocative “Beginners
Guide to Learning Circles” eventually became the “resource
book” envisioned in the original proposal.

The Widening the Circle Symposium

The Group’s recognition of the significance of continual reflection
and discussion led the Group to question the completeness of its observations. They
agreed that if they were to continue to emphasize an open-ended reflection
process, the project, and all those it touched, could benefit from
a symposium involving some of the larger group of learning circle participants. In
September, 2005 the “Widening the Circle” symposium was
held and seemingly represented a shift in direction. The Group
felt they needed to check their draft conclusions, to reflect and to
explore experiences and concepts with a broader circle of people and
specifically current learning circle participants. (See report
for more details.) In this sense, the symposium was less a shift
in direction and more a creative event directly in line with the principles
and questions guiding the Working Group.

To the Working Group’s credit, the symposium was a highly successful
addition to the whole project. Discussion at the symposium enriched
the draft ideas and conclusions of the researchers and Working Group
and provided further material to build into the overall analysis and,
in turn, the Guide, the final report and recommendations. As
an outside evaluator, I found the decision to hold a symposium an important
testimony not only to the integrity of the Working Group’s process
but also to the validity of the emergent, open-ended process of learning
circles themselves. The symposium also showed that the evaluation
framework was working well: the Group was continuing to ask open-ended
questions and to gather diverse and abundant material about learning
circles.

Feedback from Organizations

The last stage in the project’s evaluation was the solicitation
of feedback from literacy practitioners across the country. The
Working Group asked interested people and groups the following questions:

What are the implications of a learning circles approach to community
learning for adult literacy work?

What are the implications of this approach for community development
work?

What are the implications for a community that you are involved
with?

Do you have any thoughts about what kind of follow-up would be
useful?

Plus any other thoughts that occur to you.

Here again the questions are broad and open-ended and indicate the
researchers’ thoughtfulness in seeking to hear about others’ experiences
and knowledge without circumscribing people’s responses.

Project Outcomes

My final meeting with the Working Group in November, 2006 was dedicated
to considering the feedback from the organizations and what was achieved
overall in the project. This was also the time for a final reflection
on the evaluative framework as a departure from the standard form of
evaluation.

At this meeting the Working Group debated about some of the feedback
particularly whether the intent of the project had been made clear
and whether readers could see that the audience for the writing was
wide open. Some felt the project writings needed to be a little
more explicit regarding these points while others felt that it was
important for the project outcomes to throw up more questions and to
spur further reflection. The various documents are not intended
to “represent” all learning circles or to offer a strict
formula for them. Instead, the outcomes (the Guide, the report,
the narratives and analyses, and the recommendations) are meant to
represent a thoughtful exploration.

Perhaps more significant was the discussion by the Group about the
absence of Francophone voices in the project. While the Group
did deliver what it promised, namely the French translation of the
final report, the Group members recognized that it would have been
useful for Francophone voices to have been involved at various stages
of the project. It was noted that the Working Group had made
efforts to involve some Francophone groups but that insufficient resources
had been available to do more especially with respect to translation
and feedback.

Regarding the key desired outcomes of the project – how learning
circles work, of what value are they, and what can we learn from them
as vehicles for lifelong learning – the Learning Circles Project
has clearly delivered what it promised. In particular, the project
has provided the following:

A plain-language Beginner’s Guide to Learning Circles that
can be used as a conceptual introduction to learning circles. As
some symposium participants stated, the Guide also recognizes and
provides legitimacy for learning circles as an important model for
learning;

A rich collection of narratives that shows the range and variety
of learning circles in Aboriginal, rural, and urban settings;

A collection of highly insightful and unique analyses cum reflections
regarding the learning circles model. Taken together, the Guide,
the narratives and analytical writings make up an ample view of how
learning circles can work as models of informal learning, and some
of their benefits to participants and communities;

An example, in the form of the symposium, of how an open-ended
exploratory process can lead to a unique forum that engages learners
in a sort of meta-analysis (analysis-by-discussion) of a learning
process in which they are intimately involved;

An evaluation framework that resists pre-determined ends but that
serves as a rigorous guide in helping a group reach a project’s
destination;

A set of recommendations that tentatively suggest how learning
circles can contribute to the public good and how they might be supported;

A strong case for learning circles as effective and inclusive opportunities
for lifelong learning and for contributions to building social capital.

The Learning Circles Project has provided an abundance of ideas and
material and exceeded in some ways what it set out to do (symposium,
website, etc.) Although its conclusions and recommendations are
especially relevant to the literacy field they are arguably as relevant
to many other areas of civil society. In particular, the
concepts of open-ended reflection, emergent knowledge and continual
exploration of what is meaningful for the individual and the community
would be welcome additions in areas as diverse as environmental justice,
community health and community development.

In the field of health, for instance, “learning” rather
than behaviour modification could be tied more closely to determinants
of health and could itself become a determinant of health. So
too in the fields of community development and community economic development “learning” and
learning circles could take an important place beside the standard
language of “development,” “growth,” and “progress,” terms
which flow from the dominant values of the marketplace rather than
core community values.

Though beyond the scope of this project, how learning circles models
could be used elsewhere would constitute very valuable social research. In
the meantime, the many lessons and conclusions of the Learning Circles
Project will, it is to be hoped, encourage further work and action
towards placing lifelong learning, in all its varieties, closer to
the centre of how we live.